Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
OF THE DICTATORSHIP
OF THE PROLETARIAT
M
L
© Digital Reprints
2006
THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE
OF THE DICTATORSHIP
OF THE PROLETARIAT
A copy of this material has been filed with the Foreign Agents
Registration Section, Department of Justice, Washington D.C.
where the registration statement of China Books & Periodicals,
2929 - 24th St. San Francisco 10, Calif. as an agent of Guozi
Shudan aqnd China Reconstructs, both of Peking, China, is
available for inspection. The fact of registration does not in-
dicate approval of this material by the Government of the
United States.
ON THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE
DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT 1
3
development, invariably accumulated experience in their
rule through making innumerable mistakes of historic
import over long periods of time and through repeating
these mistakes again and again. Nevertheless, with the
sharpening of the contradiction between the relations of
production which they represented and the productive
forces of society, still they inevitably committed mistakes,
bigger and more, precipitating a massive revolt of the op-
pressed classes and disintegration within their own ranks,
and thus eventually bringing about their destruction. The
dictatorship of the proletariat is fundamentally different
in its nature from any of the previous kinds of dictator-
ship, which were dictatorships by the exploiting classes.
It is a dictatorship of the exploited classes, a dictatorship
of the majority over the minority, a dictatorship for the
purpose of creating a socialist society in which there is
no exploitation and poverty, and it is the most progres-
sive and the last dictatorship in the history of mankind.
But, since this dictatorship undertakes the greatest and
the most difficult tasks and is confronted with a struggle
which is the most complicated and tortuous in history,
therefore, many mistakes, as Lenin has said, are bound
to be made in its operation. If some Communists indulge
in self-exaltation and self-complacency and develop a
rigid way of thinking, they may even repeat their own
mistakes or those of others. We Communists must take
full account of this. To defeat powerful enemies, the
dictatorship of the proletariat requires a high degree of
centralization of power. This highly centralized power
must be combined with a high level of democracy. When
there is an undue emphasis on centralization, many mis-
takes are bound to occur. This is quite understandable.
But whatever the mistakes, the dictatorship of the pro-
4
letariat is, for the popular masses, always far superior to
all dictatorships of the exploiting classes, to the dictator-
ship of the bourgeoisie. Lenin was right when he said:
If our enemies reproach us and say that Lenin himself
admits that the Bolsheviks have done a host of foolish
things, I want to reply by saying: yes, but do you know
that the foolish things we have done are entirely dif-
ferent from those you have done?
The exploiting classes, out for plunder, have all hoped
to perpetuate their dictatorship generation after genera-
tion, and have therefore resorted to every possible
means to grind down the people. Their mistakes are
irremediable. On the other hand, the proletariat, which
strives for the material and spiritual emancipation of the
people, uses its dictatorship to bring about communism,
to bring about harmony and equality among mankind, and
lets its dictatorship gradually wither away. That is why
it does its utmost to bring into full play the initiative
and the positive role of the masses. The fact that, under
the dictatorship of the proletariat, it is possible to bring
into play without limit the initiative and the positive role
of the masses also makes it possible to correct any mis-
takes committed during the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Leaders of Communist Parties and socialist states in
various fields are duty bound to do their utmost to reduce
mistakes, avoid serious ones, endeavour to learn lessons
from isolated, local and temporary mistakes and make
every effort to prevent them from developing into mis-
takes of a nation-wide or prolonged nature. To do this,
every leader must be most prudent and modest, keep close
to the masses, consult them on all matters, investigate
and study the actual situation again and again and con-
5
stantly engage in criticism and self-criticism appropriate
to the situation and well measured. It was precisely be-
cause of his failure to do this that Stalin, as the chief
leader of the Party and the state, made certain serious
mistakes in the later years of his work. He became con-
ceited and imprudent. Subjectivism and one-sidedness
developed- in his thinking and he made erroneous deci-
sions on certain important questions, which led to serious
consequences.
With the victory of the Great October Socialist Revolu-
tion, the people and the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union, under the leadership of Lenin, established the
first socialist state on one-sixth of the earth. The Soviet
Union speedily carried out socialist industrialization
and collectivization of agriculture, developed socialist
science and culture, established a solid union of many
nationalities in the form of a union of the Soviets, and
the formerly backward nationalities in the Soviet Union
became socialist nationalities. During the Second World
War, the Soviet Union was the main force in defeating
fascism and saving European civilization. It also helped
the peoples in the East to defeat Japanese milita-
rism. All these glorious achievements pointed out to all
mankind its bright future—socialism and communism,
seriously shook the rule of imperialism and made the
Soviet Union the first and strong bulwark in the world
struggle for lasting peace. The Soviet Union has en-
couraged and supported all other socialist countries in
their construction, and it has been an inspiration to the
world socialist movement, the anti-colonialist movement
and every other movement for the progress of mankind.
These are the great achievements made by the people and
the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in the history
6
of mankind. The man who showed the Soviet people
and Communist Party the way to these great achieve-
ments was Lenin. In the struggle to carry out Lenin’s
principles, the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, for its vigorous leadership,
earned its credit, in which Stalin had an ineffaceable
share.
After Lenin’s death Stalin, as the chief leader of the
Party and the state, creatively applied and developed
Marxism-Leninism. In the struggle to defend the legacy
of Leninism and against its enemies—the Trotskyites,
Zinovievites and other bourgeois agents—Stalin expressed
the will and wishes of the people and proved himself to
be an outstanding Marxist-Leninist fighter. The reason
why Stalin won the support of the Soviet people and
played an important role in history was primarily because
he, together with the other leaders of the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union, defended Lenin’s line on the
industrialization of the Soviet state and the collectiviza-
tion of agriculture. By pursuing this line, the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union brought about the triumph
of socialism in the Soviet Union and created the conditions
for the victory of the Soviet Union in the war against
Hitler; these victories of the Soviet people conformed to
the interests of the working class of the world and all
progressive mankind. It was therefore quite natural for
the name of Stalin to be greatly honoured throughout the
world. But, having won such high honour among the
people, both at home and abroad, by his correct application
of the Leninist line, Stalin erroneously exaggerated his
own role and counterposed his individual authority to
the collective leadership, and as a result certain of his
actions were opposed to certain fundamental Marxist-
7
Leninist concepts which he himself had propagated. On
the one hand, he recognized that the masses were the
makers of history, that the Party must keep in constant
touch with the people and that inner-Party democracy
and self-criticism and criticism from below must be
developed. On the other hand, he accepted and fostered
the cult of the individual, and indulged in arbitrary indi-
vidual actions. Thus Stalin found himself in a contradic-
tion on this question during the latter part of his life,
with a discrepancy between his theory and practice.
Marxist-Leninists hold that leaders play a big role in
history. The people and their parties need forerunners
who are able to represent the interests and will of the
people, stand in the forefront of their historic struggles
and serve as their leaders. It is utterly wrong to deny
the role of the individual, the role of forerunners and
leaders. But when any leader of the Party or the state
places himself over and above the Party and the masses
instead of in their midst, when he alienates himself from
the masses, he ceases to have an all-round, penetrating
insight into the affairs of the state. As long as this was
the case, even so outstanding a personality as Stalin could
not avoid making unrealistic and erroneous decisions on
certain important matters. Stalin failed to draw lessons
from isolated, local and temporary mistakes on certain
issues and so failed to prevent them from becoming serious
mistakes of a nation-wide or prolonged nature. During
the latter part of his life, Stalin took more and more pleas-
ure in this cult of the individual, and violated the
Party’s system of democratic centralism and the principle
of combining collective leadership with individual re-
sponsibility. As a result he made some serious mistakes
such as the following: he broadened the scope of the
8
suppression of counter-revolution; he lacked the necessary
vigilance on the eve of the anti-fascist war; he failed to
pay proper attention to the further development of agri-
culture and the material welfare of the peasantry; he gave
certain wrong advice on the international communist
movement, and, in particular, made a wrong decision on
the question of Yugoslavia. On these issues, Stalin fell
victim to subjectivism and one-sidedness, and divorced
himself from objective reality and from the masses.
The cult of the individual is a foul carry-over from the
long history of mankind. The cult of the individual is
rooted not only in the exploiting classes but also in the
small producers. As is well known, patriarchism is a
product of small-producer economy. After the establish-
ment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, even when the
exploiting classes are eliminated, when small-producer
economy has been replaced by a collective economy and
a socialist society has been founded, certain rotten, poi-
sonous ideological survivals of the old society may still
remain in people’s minds for a very long time. “The
force of habit of millions and tens of millions is a
most terrible force” (Lenin). The cult of the individual
is just one such force of habit of millions and tens of mil-
lions. Since this force of habit still exists in society, it
can influence many government functionaries, and even
such a leader as Stalin was also affected by it. The cult
of the individual is a reflection in man’s mind of a social
phenomenon, and when leaders of the Party and state,
such as Stalin, succumb to the influence of this backward
ideology, they will in turn influence society, bringing
losses to the cause and hampering the initiative and crea-
tiveness of the masses of the people.
9
The socialist productive forces, the economic and polit-
ical system of socialism and the Party life, as they de-
velop, are increasingly coming into contradiction and
conflict with such a state of mind as the cult of the
individual. The struggle against the cult of the individual
which was launched by the 20th Congress is a great and
courageous fight by the Communists and the people of the
Soviet Union to clear away the ideological obstacles in the
way of their advance.
Some naive ideas seem to suggest that contradictions
no longer exist in a socialist society! To deny the ex-
istence of contradictions is to deny dialectics. The con-
tradictions in various societies differ in character as do
the forms of their solution, but society at all times de-
velops through continual contradictions. Socialist society
also develops through contradictions between the produc-
tive forces and the relations of production. In a socialist
or communist society, technical innovations and improve-
ment in the social system inevitably continue to take
place; otherwise the development of society would come
to a standstill and society could no longer advance. Hu-
manity is still in its youth. The road it has yet to traverse
will be no one knows how many times longer than the
road it has already travelled. Contradictions, as between
progress and conservatism, between the advanced and the
backward, between the positive and the negative, will
constantly occur under varying conditions and different
circumstances. Things will keep on like this: one con-
tradiction will lead to another; and when old contradic-
tions are solved new ones will arise. It is obviously in-
correct to maintain, as some people do, that the contradic-
tion between idealism and materialism can be eliminated
in a socialist or communist society. As long as contradic-
10
tions exist between the subjective and the objective, be-
tween the advanced and the backward, and between the
productive forces and the relations of production, the
contradiction between materialism and idealism will
continue in a socialist or communist society, and will
manifest itself in various forms. Since man lives in
society, he reflects, in different circumstances and to
varying degrees, the contradictions existing in each form
of society. Therefore, not everybody will be perfect,
even when a communist society is established. By then
there will still be contradictions among people, and there
will still be good people and bad, people whose thinking is
relatively correct and others whose thinking is relatively
incorrect. Hence there will still be struggle between peo-
ple, though its nature and form will be different from
those in class societies. Viewed in this light, the ex-
istence of contradictions between the individual and the
collective in a socialist society is nothing strange. And
if any leader of the Party or state isolates himself from
collective leadership, from the masses of the people and
from real life, he will inevitably fall into rigid ways of
thinking and consequently make grave mistakes. What
we must guard against is that some people, because the
Party and the state have achieved many successes in work
and won the great trust of the masses, may take advantage
of this trust to abuse their authority and so commit some
mistakes.
The Chinese Communist Party congratulates the Com-
munist Party of the Soviet Union on its great achieve-
ments in this historic struggle against the cult of the
individual. The experience of the Chinese revolution,
too, testifies that it is only by relying on the wisdom of
the masses of the people, on democratic centralism and on
11
the system of combining collective leadership with indi-
vidual responsibility that our Party can score great vic-
tories and do great things in times of revolution and in
times of national construction. The Chinese Communist
Party, in its revolutionary ranks, has incessantly fought
against elevation of oneself and against individualist
heroism, both of which mean isolation from the masses.
Undoubtedly, such things will exist for a long time to
come. Even when overcome, they re-emerge. They
are found sometimes in one person, sometimes in another.
When attention is paid to the role of the individual, the
role of the masses and the collective is often ignored.
That is why some people easily fall into the mistake of
self-conceit or blind faith in themselves or blind worship
of others. We must therefore give unremitting attention to
opposing elevation of oneself, individualist heroism and
the cult of the individual.
To counter subjectivist methods of leadership, the Cen-
tral Committee of the Communist Party of China adopted
a resolution in June 1943 on methods of leadership. In
discussing now the question of collective leadership in
the Party, it is still worthwhile for all members of the
Chinese Communist Party and all its leading personnel
to refer to this resolution, which declared:
20
MORE ON
THE HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE
DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT 1
31
II
43
III
45
them avoid roundabout ways in their progress and reduce
their losses. On the other hand, indiscriminate and me-
chanical copying of experience that has been successful
in the Soviet Union let alone that which was unsuc-
cessful there—may lead to failures in another country.
Lenin wrote in the passage immediately following the
one quoted above:
And in order to implement this experience, it is not
enough merely to be acquainted with it, or simply to
transcribe the latest resolutions. What it requires is
the ability to treat this experience critically and to
test it independently. Anybody who realizes how enor-
mously the modern working-class movement has grown
and branched out will understand what a reserve of
theoretical forces and political (as well as revolutionary)
experience is required to fulfil this task. 1
Obviously, in countries where the proletariat has gained
power, the problem is many times more complex than
that referred to by Lenin here.
In the history of the Communist Party of China be-
tween 1931 and 1934, there were doctrinaires who refused
to recognize China’s specific characteristics, mechanically
copied certain experiences of the Soviet Union, and caused
serious reverses to the revolutionary forces of our coun-
try. These reverses were a profound lesson to our Party.
In the period between the Tsunyi Conference of 1935
and the Party’s Seventh National Congress held in 1945,
our Party thoroughly examined and repudiated this ex-
tremely harmful doctrinaire line, united all its members,
including those who had made mistakes, developed the
1
V. I. Lenin, op. cit., Vol. I, Part 1, pp. 227-28.
46
people’s forces and thus won victory for the revolution.
If this had not been done, victory would have been im-
possible. It is only because we discarded the doctrinaire
line~ that it has become possible for our Party to make
fewer mistakes in learning from the experience of the
Soviet Union and other brother countries. It is because
of .this too that we are able to understand fully how
necessary and arduous it is for our Polish and Hungarian
comrades to correct today the doctrinaire errors of the
past.
Errors of doctrinairism, whenever and wherever they
occur, must be set right. We shall continue our efforts
to correct and prevent such errors in our work. But
opposition to doctrinairism has nothing in common with
tolerance of revisionism. Marxism-Leninism recognizes
that the communist movements of various countries nec-
essarily have their own national characteristics. But
this does not mean that they do not share certain basic
features in common, or that they can depart from the
universal truth of Marxism-Leninism. In the present anti-
doctrinaire tide, there are people both in our country and
abroad who, on the pretext of opposing the mechanical
copying of Soviet experience, try to deny the inter-
national significance of the fundamental experience of the
Soviet Union and, on the plea of creatively developing
Marxism-Leninism, try to deny the significance of the
universal truth of Marxism-Leninism.
Because Stalin and the former leaders in some other
socialist countries committed the serious mistake of violat-
ing socialist democracy, some unstable people in the
communist ranks, on the pretext of developing socialist
democracy, attempt to weaken or renounce the dicta-
torship of the proletariat, the principles of democratic
47
centralism of the socialist state, and the leading role of
the Party.
There can be no doubt that in a proletarian dictatorship
the dictatorship over the counter-revolutionary forces
must be closely combined with the broadest scope of
people’s, that is, socialist, democracy. The dictatorship
of the proletariat is mighty and can defeat powerful
enemies within the country and outside it and
undertake the majestic historic task of building
socialism precisely because it is a dictatorship of the
working masses over the exploiters, a dictatorship of the
majority over the minority, because it gives the broad
working masses a democracy which is unattainable under
any bourgeois democracy. Failure to forge close links with
the mass-of the working people and to gain their enthu-
siastic support makes it impossible to establish the dic-
tatorship of the proletariat, or at any rate impossible to
consolidate it. The more acute the class struggle be-
comes, the more necessary it is for the proletariat to rely,
most resolutely and completely, on the broad masses of
the people and to bring into full play their revolutionary
enthusiasm to defeat the counter-revolutionary forces.
The experience of the stirring and seething mass struggles
in the Soviet Union during the October Revolution and
the ensuing civil war proved this truth to the full. It is
from Soviet experience in that period that the “mass
line” our Party so often talks about was derived. The
acute struggles in the Soviet Union then depended mainly
on direct action by the mass of the people, and naturally
there was little possibility for perfect democratic pro-
cedures to develop. After the elimination of the exploit-
ing classes and the wiping out in the main of the
counter-revolutionary forces, it was still necessary for the
48
dictatorship of the proletariat to deal with counter-revolu-
tionary remnants—these could not be wiped out com-
pletely so long as imperialism existed—but by then its
edge should have been mainly directed against the ag-
gressive forces of foreign imperialism. In these circum-
stances, democratic procedures in the political life of the
country should have been gradually developed and per-
fected; the socialist legal system perfected; supervision
by the people over the state organs strengthened; demo-
cratic methods of administering the state and managing
enterprises developed; links between the state organs and
the bodies administering various enterprises on the one
hand, and the broad masses on the other, made closer;
hindrances impairing any of these links done away with
and a firmer check put on bureaucratic tendencies. After
the elimination of classes, the class struggle should not
continue to be stressed as though it was being intensified,
as was done by Stalin with the result that the healthy
development of socialist democracy was hampered. The
Communist Party of the Soviet Union is completely right
in firmly correcting Stalin’s mistakes in this respect.
Socialist democracy should in no way be pitted against
the dictatorship of the proletariat; nor should it be con-
fused with bourgeois democracy. The sole aim of social-
ist democracy, in the political, economic and cultural
fields alike, is to strengthen the socialist cause of the
proletariat and all the working people, to give scope to
their energy in the building of socialism and in the fight
against all anti-socialist forces. If there is a kind of de-
mocracy that can be used for anti-socialist purposes and
for weakening the cause of socialism, it certainly cannot
be called socialist democracy.
49
Some people, however, do not see things that way.
Their reaction to events in Hungary has revealed this
most clearly. In the past the’ democratic rights and
revolutionary enthusiasm of the Hungarian working peo-
ple were impaired, while the counter-revolutionaries were
not dealt the blow they deserved, with the result that it
was fairly easy for the counter-revolutionaries, in October
1956, to take advantage of the discontent of the masses
to organize an armed revolt. This shows that Hungary
had not yet made a serious enough effort to build up
its dictatorship of the proletariat. Nevertheless, when
Hungary was facing its crisis, when it lay between revolu-
tion and counter-revolution, between socialism and fas-
cism, between peace and war, how did communist intel-
lectuals in some countries see the problem? They not
only did not raise the question of realizing a dictatorship
of the proletariat but came out against the righteous
action taken by the Soviet Union in aiding the socialist
forces in Hungary. They came out with declarations
that the counter-revolution in Hungary was a “revolution”
and with demands that the Worker-Peasant Revolutionary
Government extend “democracy” to the counter-revolu-
tionaries! In certain socialist countries some newspapers,
even to this day, are wantonly discrediting the revolu-
tionary measures taken by the Hungarian Communists
who are fighting heroically under difficult conditions,
while they have said hardly a word about the campaign
launched by reactionaries all over the world against
communism, against the people and against peace. What
is the meaning of these strange facts? They mean that
those “Socialists” who depart from the dictatorship of
the proletariat to prate about “democracy” actually stand
with the bourgeoisie in opposition to the proletariat; that
50
they are, in effect, asking for capitalism and opposing
socialism, though many among them may themselves be
unaware of that fact. Lenin pointed out time and again
that the theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat is
the most essential part of Marxism; that acceptance or
rejection of the dictatorship of the proletariat is what
constitutes the most profound difference between the
Marxist and the ordinary petty (as well as big) bourgeois.”1
Lenin asked the Hungarian proletarian regime of 1919 to
use “mercilessly rigorous, swift and resolute force” to
suppress the counter-revolutionaries. “Whoever does
not understand this,” he said, “is not a revolutionary, and
must be removed from the post of leader or adviser of the
proletariat.” 2 So if people reject the fundamental Marx-
ist-Leninist principles regarding the dictatorship of the
proletariat, if they slanderously dub these principles
“Stalinism” and “doctrinairism” simply because they have
perceived the mistakes committed by Stalin in the latter
part of his life and those made by the former Hungarian
leaders, they will be taking the path that leads to betrayal
of Marxism-Leninism and away from the cause of prole-
tarian revolution.
Those who reject the dictatorship of the proletariat also
deny the need for centralism in socialist democracy and
the leading role played by the proletarian party in socialist
countries. To Marxist-Leninists, of course, such ideas are
nothing new. Engels pointed out long ago, when strug-
gling against the anarchists, that as long as there is con-
certed action in any social organization there must be a
certain degree of authority and subordination. The rela-
1
V. I. Lenin, op. cit., Vol. II, Part 1, p. 233.
2
Ibid., Vol. II, Part 2, p. 209.
51
tion between authority and autonomy is relative and the
scope of their application changes with different stages
of the development of society. Engels said that “it is
absurd to speak of the principle of authority as being
absolutely evil, and of the principle of autonomy as being
absolutely good,” 1 and that for anyone to insist on such
an absurdity was in fact to “serve the reaction.” 2 In the
struggle against the Mensheviks, Lenin brought out most
clearly the decisive significance of the organized leader-
ship of the Party for the proletarian cause. When criticiz-
ing “Left-wing” communism in Germany in 1920, Lenin
stressed that to deny the leading role of the Party, to
deny the part played by leaders and to reject discipline,
“is tantamount to completely disarming the proletariat in
the interest of the bourgeoisie. It is tantamount to that
petty-bourgeois diffuseness, instability, incapacity for
sustained effort, unity and organized action, which, if
indulged in, must inevitably destroy every proletarian
revolutionary movement.” 3 Have these principles become
obsolete? Are they inapplicable to the specific conditions
in certain countries? Will their application lead to the
repetition of Stalin’s mistakes? The answer is obviously
“no.” These principles of Marxism-Leninism have stood
the test of history in the development of the international
communist movement and of the socialist countries, and
not a single case that can be called an exception to them
has been found so far. Stalin’s mistakes did not lie in
the practice of democratic centralism in state affairs, nor
1
K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works, Vol. I, Moscow, 1955,
p. 637.
2 Ibid., Vol. I, p. 638.
3
V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. II, Part 2, p. 366.
52
in putting leadership by the Party into effect; it lay pre-
cisely in the fact that, in certain fields and to a certain
degree, he undermined democratic centralism and leader-
ship by the Party. The correct practice of democratic
centralism in state affairs and the proper strengthening
of leadership by the Party in the socialist cause are the
basic guarantees that the countries in the socialist camp
will be able to unite their people, defeat their enemies,
overcome their difficulties and grow vigorously. It is
precisely for this reason that the imperialists and all
counter-revolutionaries, bent on attacking our cause, have
always demanded that we “liberalize,” that they have
always concentrated their forces on wrecking the lead-
ing bodies of our cause, and on destroying the Communist
Party, the core of the proletariat. They have expressed
great satisfaction at the current “instability” in certain
socialist countries, which has resulted from the impair-
ment of discipline in the Party and the state organs,
and are taking advantage of this to intensify their
acts of sabotage. These facts show of what great impor-
tance it is, in the basic interests of the masses of the peo-
ple, to uphold the authority of democratic centralism and
the leading role of the Party. There is no doubt that the
centralism in the system of democratic centralism must
rest on a broad basis of democracy, and that the Party
leadership must maintain close ties with the masses. Any
shortcomings in this respect must be firmly criticized
and overcome. But such criticism should be made only
for the purpose of consolidating democratic centralism
and of strengthening the leadership of the Party. It
should in no circumstances bring about disorganization
and confusion in the ranks of the proletariat, as our
enemies desire.
53
Among those who are trying to revise Marxism-
Leninism on the pretext of combating doctrinairism, some
simply deny that there is a demarcation line between
the proletarian and the bourgeois dictatorships, between
the socialist and the capitalist systems and between the
socialist and the imperialist camps. According to them,
it is possible for certain bourgeois countries to build
socialism without going through a proletarian revolu-
tion led by the party of the proletariat and without
setting up a state led by the party; they think that the
state capitalism in those countries is in fact socialism,
and that even human society as a whole is “growing”
into socialism. But while these people are publicizing
such ideas, the imperialists are mobilizing all available
military, economic, diplomatic, espionage and “moral”
forces, actively preparing to “undermine” and “disrupt”
socialist countries which have been established for many
years. The bourgeois counter-revolutionaries of these
countries, whether hiding at home or living in exile,
are still making every effort to stage a come-back. While
the revisionist trend serves the interest of the imperial-
ists, the actions of the imperialists do not benefit re-
visionism but point to its bankruptcy.
IV
57
ternational bond of union. There are certain historical
reasons for such tendencies. The time-worn habits of
big countries in their relations with small countries con-
tinue to make their influence felt in certain ways, while
a series of victories achieved by a Party or a country
in its revolutionary cause is apt to give rise to a sense of
superiority.
For these reasons, systematic efforts are needed to over-
come great-nation chauvinist tendencies. Great-nation
chauvinism is not peculiar to any one country. For
instance, country B may be small and backward com-
pared to country A, but big and advanced compared to
country C. Thus country B, while complaining of great-
nation chauvinism on the part of country A, may often
assume the airs of a great nation in relation to country
C. What we Chinese especially must bear in mind is
that China too was a big empire during the Han, Tang,
Ming and Ching dynasties. Although it is true that in
the hundred years after the middle of the 19th century,
China became a victim of aggression and a semi-colony
and although she is still economically and culturally
backward today, nevertheless, under changed conditions,
great-nation chauvinist tendencies will certainly become
a serious danger if we do not take every precaution to
guard against them. It should, furthermore, be pointed
out that some signs of this danger have already begun
to appear among some of our personnel. That was why
emphasis on fighting the tendency towards great-nation
chauvinism was laid both in the resolution of the Eighth
National Congress of the Communist Party of China and
the statement of the Government of the People’s Republic
of China issued on November 1, 1956.
58
But it is not great-nation chauvinism alone that hinders
international proletarian unity. In the course of history,
big countries have shown disrespect for small countries
and even oppressed them; and small countries have dis-
trusted big ones and even become hostile to them. Both
tendencies still exist to a greater or lesser extent among
the peoples and even in the ranks of the proletariat of
various countries. That is why, in order to strengthen
the international solidarity of the proletariat, apart from
the primary task of overcoming great-nation chauvinist
tendencies in bigger countries, it is also necessary to
overcome nationalist tendencies in smaller countries. No
matter whether their country is big or small, if Com-
munists counterpose the interests of their own country
and nation to the general interest of the international
proletarian movement, and if they make national in-
terests a pretext for opposing the general interest, and
not really upholding international proletarian solidarity
in actual practice but on the contrary damaging it, they
will be committing a serious mistake of violating the
principles of internationalism and Marxism-Leninism.
Stalin’s mistakes aroused grave dissatisfaction among
people in certain East European countries. But then
neither is the attitude of some people in these countries
towards the Soviet Union justified. Bourgeois national-
ists try their best to exaggerate shortcomings of the
Soviet Union and overlook the contributions it has made.
They attempt to prevent the people from thinking how
the imperialists would treat their countries and their
peoples if the Soviet Union did not exist. We Chinese
Communists are very glad to see that the Communist
Parties of Poland and Hungary are already putting a
59
firm check on the activities of evil elements that fabri-
cate anti-Soviet rumours and stir up national antagon-
isms in relations with brother countries, and also that
these Parties have set to work to dispel nationalist prej-
udices existing among some sections of the masses and
even among some Party members. This is clearly one
of the steps urgently needed to consolidate friendly rela-
tions among the socialist countries.
As we pointed out above, the foreign policy of the
Soviet Union has, in the main, conformed to the interests
of the international proletariat, the oppressed nations and
the peoples of the world. In the past 39 years, the Soviet
people have made tremendous efforts and heroic sacrifices
in aiding the cause of the peoples of the various countries
Mistakes committed by Stalin certainly cannot detract from
these historic achievements of the great Soviet people.
The Soviet Government’s efforts to improve relations
with Yugoslavia, its declaration of October 30, 1956, and
its talks with Poland in November 1956 all manifest the
determination of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union and the Soviet Government to thoroughly eliminate
past mistakes in foreign relations. These steps by the
Soviet Union are an important contribution to the
strengthening of the international solidarity of the
proletariat.
Obviously, at the present moment, when the imperial-
ists are launching frenzied attacks on the communist
ranks in the various countries, it is necessary for the
proletariat of all nations to strive to strengthen its soli-
darity. Faced as we are with powerful enemies, no
word or deed which harms the solidarity of the inter-
national communist ranks, no matter what name it goes
60
by, can hope to receive any sympathy from the Com-
munists and working people of the various countries.
The strengthening of the international solidarity of
the proletariat, with the Soviet Union as its core, is not
only in the interests of world proletariat but also in the
interests of the independence movement of all oppressed
nations and of world peace. Through their own ex-
perience, the broad masses of the people in Asia, Africa
and Latin America find it easy to understand who are
their enemies and who their friends. That is why the
imperialist-instigated campaign against communism,
against the people and against peace has evoked such a
faint response, and that from only a handful among the
more than one thousand million people who inhabit these
continents. Facts prove that the Soviet Union, China,
the other socialist countries and the revolutionary prole-
tariat in the imperialist countries are all staunch sup-
porters of Egypt’s struggle against aggression, and of
the independence movement in the countries of Asia,
Africa and Latin America.
The socialist countries, the proletariat in the imperial-
ist countries, and the countries striving for national in-
dependence—these three forces have bonds of common
interest in their struggle against imperialism and their
mutual support and assistance is of the greatest signifi-
cance to the future of mankind and world peace. Re-
cently the imperialist forces of aggression have again
created a certain degree of tension in the international
situation. But by the joint struggle of the three forces
we have mentioned, plus the concerted efforts of all
other peace-loving forces in the world, a new lessening
of such tension can be achieved. The imperialist forces
of aggression failed to gain anything from their invasion
61
of Egypt; instead, they were dealt a telling blow. Fur-
thermore, thanks to the help given by the Soviet troops
to the Hungarian people, the imperialists were frustrated
in their plan to build an outpost of war in Eastern Eu-
rope and to disrupt the solidarity of the socialist camp.
The socialist countries are persisting in their efforts for
peaceful co-existence with the capitalist countries, to
develop diplomatic, economic and cultural relations with
them, to settle international disputes through peaceful
negotiations, to oppose preparations for a new world war,
to expand the peace area in the world, and to broaden the
scope of application of the five principles of peaceful
co-existence. All these efforts will certainly win ever
more sympathy from the oppressed nations and the
peace-loving people throughout the world. The strength-
ening of the international solidarity of the proletariat
will make the warlike imperialists think twice before em-
barking upon new adventures. Therefore, despite the
fact that the imperialists are still trying to resist the
efforts described above, the forces for peace will even-
tually triumph over the forces for war.
* * *
The international communist movement has a history
of only 92 years, reckoning from the establishment of
the First International in 1864. Despite many ups and
downs, the progress of the movement as a whole has
been very rapid. During the First World War, there
appeared the Soviet Union, covering one-sixth of the
earth. After the Second World War, there appeared the
camp of socialism, which now has a third of the world’s
population. When the socialist states commit errors of
one kind or another, our enemies are elated while some
62
of our comrades and friends become dejected; a number
of them even waver in their confidence as to the future
of the communist cause. However, there is little ground
for our enemies to rejoice or for our comrades and friends
to feel dejected or to waver. The proletariat has begun
to rule the state for the first time in history: in some
countries this occurred only a few years ago, and in
the oldest only a few decades ago. So how could any-
one expect that no failures would be encountered? Tem-
porary and partial failures have occurred, are still oc-
curring, and may also occur in the future. But a person
with foresight will not feel dejected and pessimistic be-
cause of them. Failure is the mother of success. It is
precisely the recent temporary, partial failures that have
enriched the political experience of the international
proletariat and will help to pave the way for great suc-
cesses in the years to come. Compared with the history of
the bourgeois revolutions in Britain and France, the fail-
ures in our cause are virtually of no account. The
bourgeois revolution in Britain started in 1640. The
defeat of the king was followed by Cromwell’s dicta-
torship. Then came-the restoration of the old royal
house in 1660. It was not until 1688 when the bour-
geois party staged a coup d’etat inviting to England a
king who brought along with him troops and naval forces
from the Netherlands that the British bourgeois dicta-
torship was consolidated. During the 86 years from the
outbreak of the French revolution in 1789 to 1875, when
the Third Republic was established, the bourgeois rev-
olution in France went through a particularly stormy
period, swinging in rapid succession between progress
and reaction, republicanism and monarchy, revolution-
ary terror and counter-revolutionary terror, civil war
63
and foreign war, the conquest of foreign lands and
capitulation to foreign states. Although the socialist rev-
olution faces the concerted opposition of the reactionaries
throughout the world, its course as a whole is smooth
and remarkably steady. This is a true reflection of the
unparalleled vitality of the socialist system. Though
the international communist movement met with some
setbacks recently, we have learned many useful lessons
from them. We have corrected, or are correcting, the
mistakes in our own ranks which need to be rectified.
When these errors are righted, we shall be stronger
and more firmly united than ever before. Contrary to
the expectation of our enemies, the cause of the pro-
letariat will not be thrown back but will make ever more
progress.
But the fate of imperialism is quite different. There,
in the imperialist world, fundamental clashes of interest
exist between imperialism and the oppressed nations,
among the imperialist countries themselves, and between
the government and the people of these imperialist coun-
tries. These clashes will grow more and more acute
and there is no cure for them.
Of course, in many respects, the new-born system of
proletarian dictatorship still faces many difficulties, and
has many weaknesses. But, compared with the time when
the Soviet Union was struggling alone, the situation is
a good deal better. And what new birth is not attended
with difficulties and weaknesses? The issue is the future.
However many twists and turns may await us on our
forward journey, humanity will eventually reach its
bright destiny—communism. There is no force that
can stop it.
64
abcdefghijk
*
abcdxcd ( fg )
1959 h 2 i j1d
sl: ( m ) 3050 — 191